Despite Debt-Ceiling Deal, Americans Not Out of Danger by Barrington M. Salmon

Despite Debt-Ceiling Deal, Americans Not Out of Danger

By Barrington M. Salmon 

President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 Aug. 2. The Senate approved the bill shortly before the Obama signed it by a vote of 74 to 26. The House passed the same bill a day earlier by a vote of 269 to 161. PHOTO: Pete Souza / The White House

Even though both sides were able to maneuver around their many differences and agree on a deal Tuesday, August 2, she looked less than pleased as she described her reaction.

"All this was avoidable," she said with a sigh. "It's ridiculous. I see this as the Tea Party trying to make things difficult for the first black president, President Obama. I was hoping he wouldn't give in. I knew this would be a hard decision for him. The bottom line is, I figured they would strike an agreement because they couldn't afford to risk not coming to some settlement."

The last hurdle in the fractious and bruising internecine battle was crossed early Tuesday afternoon when the Senate voted 74-26 for a bill that raises the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion dollars. The bill, which Obama, signed into law shortly after, also includes $1 trillion in spending cuts – a key demand of the GOP. The agreement came a mere 12 hours before a deadline that would have seen the United States fall into default, unable to pay all of its bills.

The bill passed in the House of Representatives Monday by a margin of 269-161, with half the Democrats voting against it.

The debt-ceiling bill increases the debt limit by $400 billion now, with an additional $500 billion available in the fall. According to provisions in the bill, this $900 billion would be reduced by cuts to federal agencies and defense spending. This dollar-for-dollar increase in spending cuts was championed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deal could reduce the deficit by $2.1 trillion between 2012 and 2021.

Tallahassee resident James W. Haskins, Jr., 78, said the elected leaders' inability to find common ground and work out an accord was the topic of intense conversation between him and fellow retirees.

"Everyone I know who's on Social Security were about to go into temper tantrums because they didn't know what was going to happen," said Haskins, a former university professor and public relations executive. "People are already overtaxed and struggling and had to deal with this."

"The Republicans are spiteful and petty and I expect them to fight the president even harder on domestic policy," said Haskins, a veteran of the Korean War. "They would have put millions of people in jeopardy by taking away their Social Security. I don't want them messing with my Social Security because I earned it; I worked hard for it."

The Rev. Anthony J. Motley shared a common sentiment that none of the political wrangling needed to have happened.

"It is my contention that they should have done the right thing: protect the poor, those affected by the economy, protected the most vulnerable – the elderly, students and the disabled. That should have been the first priority. There is a very wide disparity but we have a moral obligation to ensure that the safety nets are preserved at any and all costs," the Southeast resident said.

From what Avis Jones-DeWeever has seen, benefits are few, particularly for the poor and disadvantaged. Jones-DeWeever, executive director of the National Council of Negro Women, said the end result of this political power struggle caps discretionary spending for 10 years.

"This mandates sacrifices from the poor. Low- income Americans have been suffering and will continue to suffer," said Jones-DeWeever during a phone interview from Puerto Rico Tuesday night. "What is particularly disturbing is that the wealthy among us don't have any responsibility to help reduce the deficit."

"Although entitlement programs won't be cut at this stage, we don't know what programs will be cut. It means WIC may be cut and people can't get nutritional assistance, they can't get oil during the winter, have access to jobs or we can't invest in the economy."

Jones-DeWeever said the wrangling over which cuts to make is far from over.

Lawmakers plan to create a special bipartisan commission whose mandate is to draft legislation to find as much as $1.5 trillion to trim from the budget. Those recommendations would be voted on by Congress later this year. Three members each would be chosen by Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.), Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Medicare, Medicaid, federal retirement subsidies and farm subsidies are a few of the programs that may come under the knife.

"We are moving towards November when (the) panel will decide, said Jones-DeWeever.

"The main difficulty is that the trigger mechanism only includes cut and no revenue. There are likely cuts both sides won't want to implement. My particular fear is that those far to the right will favor cuts to the deficit without taxes being increased. The biggest win in this stage was that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were not on the table. Maybe later there'll be hope of some balance."

Few seemed happy with the deal, including Pelosi who publicly stated her dismay with the bill. Liberals and many on the left are furious because they don't think Obama fought hard enough to defend the Democratic position. In addition, they want to know why the president didn't seek an extension of payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits. They particularly abhor the compromises Obama made, seeing them as counterintuitive and contrary to the ideals he held dear.

Howard University Political Science Professor Lorenzo Morris had a much more charitable view of Obama's efforts. He said that passage of the bill showed the president's ability to lead.

"I think President Obama's pattern and policy has always been cooperation," he said.

"Restrictions on spending in times of high unemployment will be damaging to the economy. If someone is sick and in the hospital, that is not the time to say you want to cut back on paying for their care."

Morris said it is quite difficult to effect compromise with elected officials (Tea Party members) who are unwilling to concede to or accept the positions of their own leadership, much less the opposition's. While a rational man makes a good leader, he said, sometimes there is the need for an emotional man.

"(Sometimes), showing emotional commitment is necessary," said Morris.

There are no short-term benefits for African Americans and people of color in this bill, Morris said.

"We should not sugarcoat what was agreed on," he said. "With regards to Social Security, for example, reasonable analysis was lacking ... and the capacity to sustain (such programs) was not built into this. As I see it, there will be no significant virtue to this bill in five years."

Morris chided both sides for not discussing unemployment. And he said he doubted the bill would generate sufficient faith among investors. One outcome, he said, is that the labyrinthine process needed to come to agreement illustrates the disarray of the party structure.

"Both parties should have confronted the Bush tax cuts as it was being developed. The $4 trillion lost is greater than the amount being saved now," said Morris.

D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton, 74, said, "This one-sided deal takes money out of the economy. It's a very bad deal for average Americans. We need something to spur jobs."

Norton and Jones-DeWeever said Obama and the country are dealing with a difficult set of circumstances.

Jones-DeWeever said, "We have boxed ourselves into a corner. We need investment but they came up with an arbitrary cap with extreme restrictions. There is no creativity to grow jobs, these are the highest levels of poverty we're ever seen since these numbers were recorded, one in four of our children are living in poverty. The need has increased but we are balancing the budget on the backs of the poor."